Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on October 11, 2004, 10:13:59 PM
-
Never mind this thred. My intal concern was based on faulty data...
-
lmao
Dude.. there are SO many other factors BESIDES horsepower that affect speed.
That, and the K4 was a high-alt variant. NOT meant for use at low level.
-
Grunherz,
For some reason the drag of the radial engine does not account for as much as one would expect. Look at the early F4U-1. 2,000HP and 345MPH at sea level with 314 sq ft of wing area.
My guess is the paristic effect of the supercharger in the K-4 didn't help much down low either.
Did the 190 use direct air injection(ram air)?
-
High drag radial? Don't tell the Russians that > La-7.
-
The K-4 was WAY faster than that.
-
I'd say Kurt Tank, yet I just got back from Nellis AFB and I got pictures news at 11 :D
-
.
-
Never mind this thread. I just found out Crumpp was basing his figures on some very early prototype 109K4 that did not produce close to the the low alt power of the real production machine with MW50..
:)
-
Here are the best charts for the Bf-109K that I have:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097578892_bf109k605l.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097579204_bf-109start1.jpg)
The original claim was that the Bf-109 was always faster than the FW-190 throughout the war and at all altitudes. Below 6 Km the FW-190 is faster. The two fighters complemented each other much like the Tempest and the Spitfire. At high altitudes the 109 was the better performer. Down low the FW-190 took the lead.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097540960_doraspeed3.3.jpg)
In fact the Bf-109K is the only variant to match the FW-190A's low-level speed. Of course it's contemporary, the Dora, is much faster on the deck especially when using MW50.
Crumpp
-
Ummm...
How does that rack up against Tempests and Lala's?
-
Oh, BTW, the charts are rather unclear.
I'll see if I can get a friend of mine (Graphic's man) to clean them up a bit.
If it succeeds, Crumpp, I'l mail them to you again.
You'll need them in a clean form for your book anyway
-
The K-4 was faster at SL than the K-14 (2000ps vs 1700ps).
-
Those charts are worthless Crummp, and you know it. They are dated April 44 when no Bf109K4 existed. If any 109K was around then it waa rough in develolment prototype with a rough in development engine. Also it is without MW50.
How dare do you pass this on as representative in service Bf109K data is beyond me, its practically lying...
-
Or being clumsy?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Or being clumsy?
Maybe. But i'm guessing that Crummp is extremly familiar with reading charts so i dont accaept that simple mistake. Especially considerng how ademant and arrognat he was concerninmg that chart.
Furthermore he should know that there were no in service Bf109K4 in aprill 44 or late 43 whenb these supposed "tests" were conducted... So at best those were early rough development prototypes with early rough undeveloped engines... Especially so considering the way he jumped all over me when I refernced some early dora protopype data which showed it to be extremly slow. He immediately denounced it as worthless because it was an undeveloped prototype, but curiously he would not allow the thought that the 109K data from late 1943 might be an early undeveoped prototype with unrepresentave performance... :rolleyes:
Also its clear none of those curves show an MW50 Bf109K4. So that being an in developent engine, with no MW 50 lord knows how little power it produced.
Also the charts shoedca K4 with GM1, something the rea; inservice K4 did not mount. GM1 is a high alt sysyem thats pretty useless down low.. The eal 109K4 mounted MW50 for low to medium alt boost.
So that data, that crap prototype data is nowhere near representave of a real fully developed MW50 109K4..
Finally I asked him the other day if he tjought that a 2000HP Bf109K4 should be that slow and he showed thae charts to me as evidence of in service 109k performance.
And of course he was adamrnt about it...
There are just too many decietful things to make me think it was a simple unbiased mistake... Especially coming from a guy who fancies himself ecxpert enough on the subject of LW planes to consider writing a book on it...
Of course I would forgive the incident if Crummp admits the data is worthless and highly unrepresentave of a fully developed in service Bf109K4...
-
IIRC, the Bf 109K w/DB605D was restricted to 1.8 ata using B4+MW50 or straight C3, which is good for about 1800 ps. The 2000 ps 1.98 ata figure was for C3+MW50 and I don't believe it was available until early '45.
At 1975 hp + 148 lbs exhaust thrust I'm getting a Cd 0 of .0259 for 378 mph. (80% Prop efficiency)
Using the same Cd 0 figure, but changing power to 1777 hp + 135 lbs thrust, comes to 364 mph @ SL.
Given that the DB605D chart shows Climb & Combat, not Start & Emergency, those figures are probably pretty accurate.
Greg Shaw
(edited to fix ps/hp confusion)
-
Given that the DB605D chart shows Climb & Combat, not Start & Emergency, those figures are probably pretty accurate.
Thank you Greg.
Only data I have seen for MW-50 speed at sea level is for a 109K4/R2 photo recon version. This version does not mount cowl guns and has a smoothed over fairing.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097609441_109kr2speed.jpg)
Unfortunately Jochen Prien and Peter Rodeike say no evidence exist's the Bf-109K4/R2 made it from testing to the Geschwaders.
Crumpp
-
Oh, BTW, the charts are rather unclear. I'll see if I can get a friend of mine (Graphic's man) to clean them up a bit.
Thank you Angus. Got a list of materials relating to the FW-190A from the Archives at Wright Patterson. Gonna be heading that way soon. I will email the list to you and if you have any request's for other specific data let me know.
Crumpp
-
That 580/710 km/h figue seems to be right in line with 1.8 ata for the DB605. A test from August '44 would most likely be B4+MW50 as well.
Greg Shaw
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Thank you Angus. Got a list of materials relating to the FW-190A from the Archives at Wright Patterson. Gonna be heading that way soon. I will email the list to you and if you have any request's for other specific data let me know.
Crumpp
When did they open up again for research? I lived two hours from there for the last 2 1/2 years, and they were closed due to security the whole time. Just moved away a couple months ago. If they opened back up just after I left I'm gonna be pissed.
Greg Shaw
-
Originally posted by gwshaw
IIRC, the Bf 109K w/DB605D was restricted to 1.8 ata using B4+MW50 or straight C3, which is good for about 1800 ps. The 2000 ps 1.98 ata figure was for C3+MW50 and I don't believe it was available until early '45.
At 1975 hp + 148 lbs exhaust thrust I'm getting a Cd 0 of .0259 for 378 mph. (80% Prop efficiency)
Using the same Cd 0 figure, but changing power to 1777 hp + 135 lbs thrust, comes to 364 mph @ SL.
Given that the DB605D chart shows Climb & Combat, not Start & Emergency, those figures are probably pretty accurate.
Greg Shaw
(edited to fix ps/hp confusion)
There Crummp a 2000hp MW50 109K4 does 378hp at SL.
An 1800HP one does 364mph at sea level.
Both are as fast or faster than 190A8. You are wrong.
-
When did they open up again for research?
Please post your email so we can remove the discussion off the BBS. Yes they are still closed to the public.
Thanks Greg!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Please post your email so we can remove the discussion off the BBS.
Thanks Greg!
Crumpp
Yea get your crap and lies off this board!
At least until you admit the garbage you posted and insistedd was refective of real 2000HP Bf109K was actually worthless and unrepresentative!
-
There Crummp a 2000hp MW50 109K4 does 378hp at SL.
Yes for this flight test which shows 575kph for the FW-190A8 with full wing cannon and the 115 liter aux tank. Remember the other tested flight data I have on the FW-190A8 says 585kph at sea level. Unfortunately the 109K does not begin to touch the FW-190D9 which was it's contemporary.
Guess you missed, Gregs other calculations in the other thread. Selective with our facts huh?
Crumpp
-
Greg calculated 378mph for seallevel for a 2000hp Bf109K4 with MW50..
Which is the standrard accepted true published figure for a 2000hp Bf109K4...
He also calculated 364mph for an 1800hp Bf109K4..
Your figure of 585km/h for the best case A8 is 363mph - so any Bf109K4 is as fast or faster than yoiur best case Fw190A8.. In fact the worst case production K4 at 1800HP is as fast as your best case FW190A8.. Hillarious! Arent facts a biotch?
So Bf109K4 IS faster than A8 at all altitudes. You know that, and thats why you are now trying to pathetically change your argument to a comparsion between Bf109K4 and Fw190D9 from yiour original comaprsion of K4 and A8 speeds, where you arrogantly and incorrectly stated that A8 is faster than a 2000hp Bf190K4 at all alts up to 6K - of couse all based on your acceptance of an unfinsed no MW50 109K prototypes speed as gospel...
:rofl :rofl
And to think all of this could have been avoided if you didnt try to pass of the performnnce of unfinished undeveloped 109 prototypes lacking MW50 as being representative of real fully developed in service models...
-
Oh and as for your data about the K4/R2 reconnaisance model lets look at that climb figure at sea level...
13.5 meters per second....
Well thats 2,658 feet per minute... I really do wonder how much taht sucker weighed to climb so poorly... Or just how much power it really had...
Are you saying Bf109K4 with 2000hp should only climb at 2.658 fpm at sea level???
:rofl :rofl
.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097613580_bf109k4-performances-chart1.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Be careful with my figures. I used 378 mph on 2000 ps w/150 lbs exhaust as my starting point. That was based on the accepted figure of 378 @ SL for the K-4, and my notes from Butch2k's old site. But, and it is a big but, if that is a valid figure then the 1800 ps figure should be pretty close as well.
Greg Shaw
-
Are you saying Bf109K4 with 2000hp should only climb at 2.658 fpm at sea level???
I think the version you keep refering too is a March 1945 A/C. Butch2K has a great explaination of the Bf-109K4's development and clearence on his sight, Grunhertz.
The FW-190A8 was faster than the Bf-109K4 within it's time frame for development. By the time the Bf-109K4 was cleared for the 2000PS rating, the FW-190D9 was well in place.
The FW-190A8's Bf-109K4 counterpart was only cleared for 1850PS @ 1.80ata.
Crumpp
-
So at 1750hp it does 580km/h...
At 1800hp it should be faster like say 364 mph just las was calculated... Of course this is again the worst case 1800hp Bf109K4...
BTW why are you changing your tune now? That chart shows a Bf109K Jager, a fighter. Not a recon plane.. Just before this you were ademant that the only way a K4 woyld do 580km/h was if it was some some supposedly special lightenend sreamlined recon variant and not a normal fighter..
Also note that this is for only 1800hp, not the 2000hp of an MW50 powered Bf109K4 - which you also clained to be extremly slow...
Finally arent all those speeds for the inferior G14 models much higher than what you were claiming that even a K4 could to yesterday?
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190A8 was faster than the Bf-109K4 within it's time frame for development.
Crumpp
No it wasnt, you just showed us with yiour chart that a worst case Bf109k4 figter variant of only 1800HP was as fast as your best case ligthened Fw190A8...
But I'm basically happy now, even you admit and post data that a 1800hp Bf109k4 standard fighter does in the range of 360-365 mph at sea level. Which is much better than the ridicous figues of 320mph or whatever yiu were suggesting yesterday.
So with that in mind I am willing to consider the matter more or less closed if you are as well..
OK?
-
only way a K4 woyld do 580km/h
Dust your glasses off and look at the bottom.
Bewaffnung (weapons)
As per G-6/U4.......
Crumpp
-
Now as far as the Fw190D9 goes at sea level I have seen figures for it as high as 642km/h or 399mph under some special modeification and boost package. I want this plane in AH badly as a perk counterpart to the Tempest.
This is of course much better than even a 2000hp Bf109K4 at 378mph. Curiously though your brst figure for Dora so far was 612km/h which is only 381mph.
Have you not heard of this 399mph version?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Dust your glasses off and look at the bottom.
Bewaffnung (weapons)
As per G-6/U4.......
Crumpp
Do you even know what a G6/U4 is? Its a standard Bf109G6 with a 30mm MK108 engine cannon and 2 MG131, gee just like the Bewaffnung of a Bf109K4...
What on earth were you trying to prove by that?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes for this flight test which shows 575kph for the FW-190A8 with full wing cannon and the 115 liter aux tank. Remember the other tested flight data I have on the FW-190A8 says 585kph at sea level. Unfortunately the 109K does not begin to touch the FW-190D9 which was it's contemporary.
Guess you missed, Gregs other calculations in the other thread. Selective with our facts huh?
Crumpp
Crumpp, you better read again that calculations: an A8 without the outer MG151s, with MG17 replacing MG131, it's not an A8. (and with only 60% of fuel btw)
-
Crumpp please end this now, even you are posting information that shows an 1800hp worst case Bf109K4 doing in the range of 360-365mph on the deck..
Are you now trying to discredit your own documents?
Or is this just pure anger and arrogance taking over your sense now?
You were wrong yestartday in claiming that Bf109K did only 320 or 340mph on the deck. Just get over it and move on, no big deal.
Please let it go man..
Have you found any new stuff on Fw190A8 that you wanna share?
-
Do you even know what a G6/U4 is?
Yes, I was thinking G-6/R4 in AS Rustsatz. 109's can be extremely confusing.
Have you found any new stuff on Fw190A8 that you wanna share?
Not any original docs that I will post. Saving them for my book. I am sharing information with Pyro under a gentleman's agreement.
Here a summary of some of the flight tested data available a friend of mine made up.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097618437_fwspeedsummary.jpg)
Grunhertz says:
BTW why are you changing your tune now? That chart shows a Bf109K Jager, a fighter.
There was never any "tune" Grunhertz.
Grunhertz says:
Yea get your crap and lies off this board!
Grunhertz says:
Especially considerng how ademant and arrognat he was concerninmg that chart.
Ever consider the fact that I post things as I find them. I am not researching the Bf-109 but occasionally tuck away interesting documents I come across on other aircraft. Especially allied fighters which opposed the FW-190. When Angus made the assumption the 109 was always faster than the 190, he was wrong. That is proven.
Ever consider the fact that some of us enjoy discussing these fighters and sharing what we have learned about them?
I posted the data I had available and tapped into some other resources to find out what else is out there. No tune or agenda except to find out the truth.
So really appreciate the character assassination attempt when you could find any actual data to back up you claims. Hope you learned something about your favorite plane. I certainly learned something about you. You should get up with Milo.
You should contact Bill Gates. Your ability to judge character and emotional states across a BBS is uncanny. You could make millions and revolutionize Internet communications.
So the Bf-109K4 is the first 109 to equal or surpass it's FW-190A contemporary and was surpassed handily by the FW-190D9. No other model of the Bf-109F or G equaled or outperformed the BMW-801D2 equipped 190 below approximately 6 Km.
This is probably one of the reason's most Luftwaffe and Allied pilots considered it the better fighter. The other was it's maneuverability.
Crumpp, you better read again that calculations: an A8 without the outer MG151s, with MG17 replacing MG131, it's not an A8. (and with only 60% of fuel btw)
Did not catch that, Thanks for pointing it out. I think you have the Cdo of the FW-190 set a little too high. The report I offered you has the actual polar plots. The FW-190A was surprising aerodynamic, especially considering it was a radial.
Crumpp
-
So I should just accept it when you try to pass off info from a an early prototype as represebtative of the real 2000hp model?
Because Crumpp that what you did yesterday.
I asked you if you thought that a 2000hp 109k would only do 340mph and you said yes and pointed me to the chart.
I asked you if yoiu thoyght an MW50 109K would be that slow, yoiu again pointed rto that chart as evidence - but yoiu knew the chart had no MW for the 109. And of course I couldnt see the chart.
When I suggested I thought something was off about that chart with that low speed considering the 2000hp and that airframe you simply brushed my concerns aside.
When I suggested something might be wrong and suggested an analoghy with the early Dora tets which showed the same low speed, yiu dissmissed it out hand arrogantly..
And then I found out that whole chart was some early 1944 or even 1943 test then I did get pissed off at you for not disclosing that I got even more pissed when you arrogantly stuck to that even knowing it was some early prototype data..
So thats when I began to question your ethics and you motives, and rightfully so... I learned a lot about you too, if you wanna play that game... If you learned anything about me is that I will not tolerate being lied to and being decieved by irrelevant data, nobody should Crummp... And when I perceve that somebody is deceving me like that, and especially when they contune to be adement abiut it even when the fcats come out, I will call you on it and question your intent. Wouldnt everyone?
But either way I'm happy, I learned nothing new about the 109K that I did not know before. Basically that its SL speed was in the 365-380 pmh range depending on engine output between 1800 and 2000hp. I am happy now that you no longer think that a 2000hp Bf109K4 does only 320mph or whatever you thought yesterday...
BTW when is your book coming out?
-
GH.
is this a hate thing? Want to call the UN in?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
GH.
is this a hate thing? Want to call the UN in?
:)
No but I am angry that he tried to pass of 1943 unfinished prototype plane and engine tests without MW50 as being representative of a full out developed in service Bf109K4 of 2000hp..
Plese feel free to look at the other thread where this started 0 the 190 A/F boost threads. I never got angry or got a attitide until I found out that the data Crump was using to make his statements about a 2000hp Bf109K4 being so slow was based on on some test from 1943 using unfinished and underdeveloped prototpes without MW50...
Sure we disagreed on our points but it was nice enough.
But when I found the real data he was working off then yes I got very mad because i felt he was deleberttaly deceiving me in using that irrelevant chart to support his arguments about a slow in service 2000hp Bf109K...
None of this is personal, none of this is about charcater assaintion, none of is hateful it simply has to do with the fcat that I am very upset and dissapointed with the way Crummp presented that data yesterday.
-
Holy cow, what temperature is there in here?
I thought only 109-Spit threads would boil up like this :D
Ok, I'll throw my pennies in the pot.
With apologies if I'm wrong, in advance.
I belive that GH is right, the very late series of the 109 were definately faster than the 190 A series at low alt, or if you choose, at most alts.
But it's oranges and apples anyway, by the time you had the 109K, you also had the Dora, and as those two were operating toghether, the Ta 152 appeared, swooping around with incredible high alt performance.
The point remains however, that by the appearance of the 190A series untill the 109 went boosted up heavily, the 190 held the speed at low alt. It also held the roll, and the zoom, and the firepower, so no wonder the allied power dreaded the thing.
Right remains right however, and on these boards, one has seen many bluff attempts just as well as many mistakes, overseing or plainly lack of data to support a statement.
Now you two guys, PLEASE snuff your steam away a bit.
Or is steam necessary to provide a good stream of data?
I sometimes wonder.
Regards to you all
Angus
-
Lets move on.. You were very wrong yesterday in yoiur handling of the data and I got too mad in response...
Moving forward...
On that last Bf109 chart Crummp posted the data for the Bf109G14 AM, this a model with the big ugly G6 MG bumps and not a faired in cowl, shows a top speed on the deck of 353mph (568km/h)and a top speed of 413mph (665 km/h) at 16,400 feet (5km). Thats sounds like a useful performance boost over our current Bf109G6 and considering that a Bf109G14 is basically a G6 with MW50 it could be a great intermediate Bf109 we could use in scenarios.
-
Give me a low level Spit XII and we'll call it even :)
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1084983552_41spitxiis.jpg)
-
And the Mk VIII :D :D :D
-
Or is steam necessary to provide a good stream of data?
If someone else provided data besides myself (documents) and Greg (calculations) please let me know!!
Always looking for good data to add to the collection....
Angus, lol, dropped in with the occasional comment and to collect documents...;) Sort of reaping the harvest, huh?
Speaking of that. I will check out the scene, Angus, but I found a discussion board you might be interested in. I will email you.
Good insight though, bro!
The rest stood off to the side and cried big tears.
This whole thing came about and finished with data I provided and Greg backed up with calculations. Not being arrogant, it is just the truth.
But it's oranges and apples anyway, by the time you had the 109K, you also had the Dora, and as those two were operating toghether, the Ta 152 appeared, swooping around with incredible high alt performance.
Absolutely correct.
The point remains however, that by the appearance of the 190A series untill the 109 went boosted up heavily, the 190 held the speed at low alt. It also held the roll, and the zoom, and the firepower, so no wonder the allied power dreaded the thing.
Yep
Right remains right however, and on these boards, one has seen many bluff attempts just as well as many mistakes, overseeing or plainly lack of data to support a statement.
I think the vast majority are simply mistakes. Or guys just hoping to have their favorite ride become the invincible plane they always dreamed it was as a kid...who knows. I do think that actual attempts to deceive are very rare. Attacking a person's character simply because you do not like the data is, frankly, weak and pathetic.
Give me a low level Spit XII and we'll call it even
Honestly Dan, The Luftwaffe is lucky the RAF did not concentrate on that Spit your buddy flew. That thing is a stellar performer. Much better than the Mk IX, IMO.
Crumpp
-
OK Crummp, I see you still wanna throw out insults...
I questyioned your intent and motives because of the way you misrepresented the data, not the fcat that you put up some charts..
Crummp if you just came here and said, look here some data I have of a prototype 109k4 with no MW50 and left it at that then everyting would have been fine Crummp.
But no. You had to make this obviously flawed data the basis of your whole theory for having 2000hp MW50 Bf109K4 make only 340mph on the deck..
And you stuck to that story for some time even after those charts were shown to be flawed...
Thats what I was aginst... You can spin it any way you want Crump but it was inceredibly irresponsible use of clearly flawed data...
None of this would have been an issue if had discolsed that the data you were basinng yiur arguments on was from a test of early undeveloped prototypes lacking MW50.
-
But noo. You had to make this obviously flawed data the basis of your whole case for havbng 2000hp MW50 make only 340mph on the deck..
And you stuck to that story for some time even after those charts were shown to be flawed...
No Grunhertz,
1. I asked you to present some data several times. Hoping you would present something contrary and add to the discussion.
2. I disputed the contention the test was not a flight test.
3. I tapped into other sources to see if more data was available on the Bf-109K4 performance and presented it when I received some.
4. My case was exactly what Angus summarized.
It's not okay to assassinate someone's character and then brush it off with an excuse. That's just weak.
Crumpp
-
An excuse?
What excuse?
Are you saying I should be quiet when I find out that you be have been using early prototyupe tests data without MW50, and doing so without disclosing that little detail of the test, to argue that a 2000hp MW50 Bf109K4 only made the low speeds in that test?
Go back to that other thread and see where I began to challenge your character. We argued just fine and rspectfully before I found out that yoiu used this prototype no MW50 data without telling us...
That was the whole propblem, did you not think it was a relevant fact to share with us? Heck I dont write avaiation books professionall as yiou do but even I know its important to note when data comes from an early prototype thats still in develipment..
-
Arghhhh...this is how little wars start.
And....Meyer brought a useful link now didn't he?
I didn't bring anything but conclusions, but I guess we agree those are mostly correct.
So we have some boiled up misunderstanding or mistakes flying around...ok
Well, that's life on HTC's BB in a nutshell.....
-
Angus do you think it was responsible of Crumpp to use this early prototype data that did not even have MW50 in making a direct conclusiuon about an in service K4 with MW50 and 2000hp without acknowleding that the data was from such an early prototype?
You've been a neutral observber and commentator here so far, what do yiou think?
-
And....Meyer brought a useful link now didn't he?
Yes he did. Sorry I missed him.
Your conclusions were correct and as always Angus I enjoy the discussions!
Crumpp
-
Yes meyer did bring in a very useful link...
Now only if you were honest about the satus of that test none of this would have happened Crumpp...
Why couldnt you just come out and say it was early test with no MW50?
I just dont get that Crumpp.. Why?
-
Ever consider the fact that I post things as I find them. I am not researching the Bf-109 but occasionally tuck away interesting documents I come across on other aircraft. Especially allied fighters which opposed the FW-190. When Angus made the assumption the 109 was always faster than the 190, he was wrong. That is proven.
Ever consider the fact that some of us enjoy discussing these fighters and sharing what we have learned about them?
I posted the data I had available and tapped into some other resources to find out what else is out there. No tune or agenda except to find out the truth.
So really appreciate the character assassination attempt when you could find any actual data to back up you claims. Hope you learned something about your favorite plane. I certainly learned something about you. You should get up with Milo.
1. I asked you to present some data several times. Hoping you would present something contrary and add to the discussion.
2. I disputed the contention the test was not a flight test.
3. I tapped into other sources to see if more data was available on the Bf-109K4 performance and presented it when I received some.
4. My case was exactly what Angus summarized.
It's not okay to assassinate someone's character and then brush it off with an excuse. That's just weak.
Crumpp
-
Yes Crump i consered many of those things.
However I was taken aback at your insistance that those flawed charts were definitive and your refusal to accept the posibity that I knew something about Bf109K performance and knew enough to clearly see that the stats you posted were suspect.
Now I dont have a collection of charts from museums like you do, but that shouldnt mean that yiou can disrespectufly dismiss any input of mine. Other people know stuff too even if they dont spend all their free time at museums...
Because you know what, it turms out I was right and that the K4 was much faster in service than you actively argued and that those charts were indeed inaccurate and unrepresentaive of real service 109K4.
So these are two things I really got upset about and the things that made me question your motives and attitudes. First what I saw as your, arrogance in dismissing my concerns over those charts. And second you not disclosing that the tests you posted were from early prototypes with no MW50...
-
Yes Crump i consered many of those things. However I was taken aback at your insistance that those flawed charts were definitive and your refusal to accept the posibity that I knew something about Bf109K performance and knew enough to clearly see that the stats you posted were suspect.
Now I dont have a collection of charts from museums like you do, but that shouldnt mean that yiou can disrespectufly dismiss any input of mine. Other people know stuff too even if they dont spend all their free time at museums...
Because you know what, it turms out I was right and that the K4 was much faster in service than you actively argued and that those charts were indeed inaccurate and unrepresentaive of real service 109K4.
So these are two things I really got upset about and the things that made me question your motives and attitudes. First what I saw as your, arrogance in dismissing my concerns over those charts. And second you not disclosing that the tests you posted were from early prototypes with no MW50...
1. The only insistence on anything and for that matter "arrogance" is in your own mind.
2. You're just making excuses and attempting to justify your wrong behavior.
3. Not only did I not "dismiss" your concerns I took actions to address them by tracking down additional documents. What did I get for my efforts from you to find and share this information??
4. Mistakes happen. I did not catch the graph was for "climb and combat power" and not "Take off and Emergency" rating. On the other hand NIETHER did you until a third party pointed it out.
You keep trying to make this into something it is not in an attempt to justify your own actions.
It still does not change the fact:
Angus says:
But it's oranges and apples anyway, by the time you had the 109K, you also had the Dora, and as those two were operating toghether, the Ta 152 appeared, swooping around with incredible high alt performance.
Is correct for the Bf-109K4.
Angus says:
The point remains however, that by the appearance of the 190A series untill the 109 went boosted up heavily, the 190 held the speed at low alt. It also held the roll, and the zoom, and the firepower, so no wonder the allied power dreaded the thing.
Is correct for all the other 109 varients.
That is pretty much all that needs to be said on this matter.
Crumpp
-
aside from immediately knowing that figuers were suuspect, what else could I see in them, you took the graph down very quickly. Plus I'm curious how could you not see that there was no MW50 in those charts.. You referenced the gaph as evidence when I asked if you thought an MW50 powered 109k could be as slow as you stated.
And as for my actions I already said I overreacted so I am accepting responsibity for my mistakes..
Are you willing to do the same for yours?
-
And as for my actions I already said I overreacted so I am accepting responsibity for my mistakes..
Well that is the first step. You've recognized the problem. The dots indicate you know what the rest of the steps are in the process but are obviously not man enough to take them.
How could I see it, yoiu took the graph down very quickly. Plus how could you not see that there was no GM1..
The graph stayed up for a full 24 hours. I only took it down because of web space limitations.
Are you willing to do the same for yours?
For what? Becoming upset when called a liar? NO
Apologize because you act insecure and think I am being arrogant? NO
I will apologize for not being more Internet savvy. It would have been better to have more clearly communicated the fact I was looking for other documentation. That in no way makes me arrogant, or a liar. Nor was there any obligation to inform anyone of my activities.
Lastly, for making the mistake of not catching the "climb and combat power"? Sure I will apologize for it. I made it. You should too since you did not catch it either. It was a third party who caught it not you or me. I think you would rather succumb to "Conspiracy Theory" though.
Crumpp
-
The bigger issue for me is that you did not acknowlege that was an early prototype test without MW50 but then used the test data in an effort to argue MW50 109K4 speed. I felt that was disengenous and I really havent seen you adress that point so far.
And as for your arrtogance I still see a bunch of smug insults in yoiur last post....
BTW What do 4 dots mean? :rolleyes:
You know crummp screw this, here I am trying patch stuff up in this mutal mess and you are still throwing insults...
Change your attitude and we will continue...
-
You know crummp screw this, here I am trying patch stuff up in this mutal mess and you are still throwing insults...
No your not. Your trying to justify your actions.
Patching it up is:
I lost it. I was wrong. Sorry I called you a liar.
It's NOT:
I realize I was wrong BUT let me justify it with
I was upset Blah blah blah...
and it's your fault because blah blah blah blah..
Crumpp
-
It's both our fault but you are not ready to accept the responsibity you share for the way you handled that data by not discolosing the condions of the test..
I allready owned up to my mistakes here...
You havent..
Like I said Crummp, no more of this crap till you change your attitude. I have owned up to my mistakes but you refuse to do the same with yiur mistakes and just throw insults...
-
http://www.x-plane.org/users/hohun/Aircraft-evaluation-6.jpg
-
I allready owned up to my mistakes here...
You havent..
For what? Becoming upset when called a liar? NO
Apologize because you act insecure and think I am being arrogant? NO
I will apologize for not being more Internet savvy. It would have been better to have more clearly communicated the fact I was looking for other documentation. That in no way makes me arrogant, or a liar. Nor was there any obligation to inform anyone of my activities.
Lastly, for making the mistake of not catching the "climb and combat power"? Sure I will apologize for it. I made it. You should too since you did not catch it either. It was a third party who caught it not you or me. I think you would rather succumb to "Conspiracy Theory" though.
The bigger issue for me is that you did not acknowlege that was an early prototype test without MW50 but then used the test data in an effort to argue MW50 109K4 speed. I felt that was disengenous and I really havent seen you adress that point so far. And as for your arrtogance I still see a bunch of smug insults in yoiur last post....
BTW What do 4 dots mean?
You know crummp screw this, here I am trying patch stuff up in this mutal mess and you are still throwing insults...
Change your attitude and we will continue...
MORE
Attempts to justify your being wrong.
Patching it up is:
I lost it. I was wrong. Sorry I called you a liar.
It's NOT:
I realize I was wrong BUT I am not really going to apologize AND let me justify it with
I was upset Blah blah blah...
and it's your fault because blah blah blah blah..
None of this changes the fact the Bf-109 was slower.
Crumpp
PS - Nice chart HoHun. Thanks for sharing. Watch it or you will be a liar too! :rolleyes:
-
Grunherz:
From my standpoint, Crumpp probably brought the 109K data he had and did belive was normal without looking too much into it.
That's a mistake, to base on, allright.
I have on these boards seen many many much more cunning moves. Deliberate selected data for comparisons for instance.
So, cool down a bit, and smile to the fact that this thread actually HAS brought some data and useful links on our geekish mealplate :D
-
SL speeds of 1944 109s and 190s, in km/h :
G-6 w/o MW50 (1,42) : 530
G-6/AS w/o MW50 (rather early variants at 1,42) : 528
G-6/G-14 w. MW50, 1,7,ata : 568 km/h
G-6/14/AS w. MW50, 1,7ata : 560 km/h
early G-10 w. MW50, 605DM engine, 1,75ata : 562 km/
early K-4 w. 605DB and MW50, 1,8ata : 594 km/h
late K-4 w. 605DC and MW50, 1,98ata : 607 km/h
109s w. MW appeared in the first months of 1944 the earliest, along with the AS versions with large compressors. The latter had slightly inferior low alt performance, despite using the more streamlined cowling, one part because of the larger supercharger taking 40 PS away (true only to non-MW versions, ASM produced the same power as AM at low levels), and even more due to the borader propellor blades associated with the high alt engines.
A-8, from memory, 565?
early D-9, w/o MW but Ladedrucksteigerungs rustsatz, unknwon, ca 590 km/h
Late D-9, w. MW, 1,8ata : 612-615 km/h.
I think we can say at least that in 44/45, 109s were at least comparable to FW 190s in terms of low alt speeds, unlike in the previous years when FWs had about 30-40 km/h speed advantage at low levels.
-
There aint no fight like a luftwobble fight!
Two guys in lieberhausen pulling each other suspenders..
109! snap
190!snap
109! snap
190! snap
-
Hi Pongo,
>Two guys in lieberhausen pulling each other suspenders..
>109! snap
>190!snap
LOL! The picture is off, though: The Messerschmitt folks are from Lederhosen country indeed, but Focke-Wulf was based in Northern Germany where wearing Lederhosen would qualify you for the role of a primitive tribesman in Hagenbecks großer Völkerschau :-)
This cultural chasm might be one of the reasons for the fierce competition between the two firms ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
A-8, from memory, 565?
I have Luftwaffe data saying it was as high as 585kph for an FW-190A8 with aux tank removed.
But 565kph is correct as well. Just depends on the FW-190's set up.
Crumpp
-
If 565 is right for an A8 thats fully set up, meaning not lightened then what do we make for the figure of a fully loaded, in fact a bit heavier, somewhat lower performing (due to MK108 30mm) Bf109G14 with MW50 armament doing 568 at SL..
And this g14 is identical to a G6 with MW50 - these planes were around in early 44. And to emphasize again a G14AM in those tests is nothing but a standard Bf109G6 with MW50 - with all the G6 drag producing bulges and exposed wheels.
Crummp doesnt that data go against your claim that 109K4 was the only 109 that could match let alone exceed the SL speed of a contemporary Fw190A?
Also that data shows this G14/MW50 doing 665km/h at 5km (413mph at 16,400feet) This is much faster at 5km than the data you posted for Fw190A8, which only shows a speed of 640 km/h( 397mph) at the same altitude.
Crummp doesnt that data argue aginst your claim that a contemporary Fw190A was always faster that Bf109 up to 6km?
BTW the Fw190 data I refer to also shows the Fw190 doing 565kmh at sea level.
So we know that this data says a G14/MW50 (same as a g6 with MW50) with a heavier MK108 armament is:
1) As fast or 3km/h faster than an unlightned normally loaded 190A8 at sea level.
2) is 28km/h faster by 5km.
Crummp how can you then argue that a FW190A8 is always faster than any contemporary Bf109 up to 6Km? We know SL and 5KM speeds, and respectivly the contemporary 109 is a match or much better, at what alt do you propose a fully equipped (not ligtened) 190A8 is faster than this somewhat heavy 109G14 with MW50 and Mk108 armament? And just to make it clear a standard g14AM is just a G6 with MW50 - its no special model.
Fw190 data:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/587_1097702425_fw190speeds.jpg)
Bf109G14 data: (relevant model is middle column)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/587_1097703364_bf109g14data.jpg)
-
GH don't hurt yourself over this. Soon Crumpp will drag out Carson again and show you how bad the 109 really was... ;)
-
Crummp doesnt that data go against your claim that 109K4 was the only 109 that could match let alone exceed the SL speed of a contemporary Fw190A?
You still have not apologized for calling me a liar on the board nor accepted responsibility.
Don't think I am going to just let it pass or let you get away with you tantrum. Your behavior was unacceptable and uncalled for, Grunhertz. A plane performance discussion is completely secondary to that.
Crumpp
-
I thought you would try that Crummp, thats why I made a special note many times. :)
The G14 is nothing but a standardized G6 with MW50 - G6 with MW50 came out in early 1944. The G14 was an attempt to rationalize the production of the various G6 in late 44 - this failed completly but thats another story.
The main point is that the airframe, the DB605AM engine, the armament, the MW50 and most importantly their performances are all the same. Maybe thats something else you just learned about the whacky world of Bf109G. :)
Now that G14 carries a 30mm cannon. Jg26 pilots stated this noticably reduced performance in the air. So its a heavy 109. :)
-
I redited the post.
I will send my documents to Pyro. You can wonder what happenend.
Crumpp
-
And I am still offended that you did not disclose the fact that K4 data was from an early test that leacked MW50. In other words I am offended because the other day it seemed to me that you tried to decieve me with faulty data.
So we are both offended.
The only difference is that I have had the decency to accept my guilt for overreacting while you still try to play games and not accept your share of the responsibility in this matter. And you are at fault for this too. Because carelessness can contribute to conflict just as much as willfull deciet.
Why is it so difficukt for you to simply accept that you contributed to this by not disclosing that the k4 data was:
1) From early unfinmshed prototyypes dating back to 1943 or early 44. In other words not at all represntative of 2000hp planes.
2) That the engines had GM1 instead of MW50.
And please Crummp, please dont try to change the subject just by saying something about it being only climb power, that was never the issue.
Now I made my ammends for this mess numerous times, and the posts are there to prove it. All you seem to put forward is more bad attitude...
But agin, out of an attempt to be nice and resolve this conflict.
Do you think that you only made a mistake based on your lack of knowledge about the Bf109 the other day and that I got too mad in the heat of the argument, but only, when the full facts came out in the nature of the test data you were errounously presenting or perhaps misrepresnting as being representative of real in service K4?
-
109G14
The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the new official name of the G-6/MW50 designation which was used internally by Mtt for G-6 equipped with the MW-50 system previously used on the recce G-6/R2 variant.
The G-10 is described as the evolution of the G-6 using MW-50 (same system as G-6/R2) and the DB605DM.
The G-14 used only the following engines:
DB605AM,
DB605ASM,
with b4 (ASB) or / C3 (ASC) fuel (available only in 1945; the ASC was not cleared for maximum output until March 45 at the same time as the DB605DC.)
Neither the DB605A nor the DB605AS were mounted on the G-14, since the main difference from G-6 was the presence of MW-50, which required either the DB605AM or the DB605ASM engine.
The DB605AS (M) used the same supercharger as the DB605D, they were rebuilt using DB605A casing and fitted with the DB603A supercharger. They required the same kind of cowling as the DB605D equipped aircraft. Yet there are some small cowling differences between a G-10 and a G-14/AS, so you can identify one from the other.
The difference between the A and AS in the one hand and the AM and ASM in the other hand is the addition of MW-50. Of course there were other differences such as sparkplugs, timings and other settings etc.
The G-14 was (as the others) produced by Messerschmitt in Regensburg, Erla Maschinenwerke in Leipzig and WNF (Wiener Neustädter Flugzeugwerke).
The minority was built by WNF. Many G-14s built by WNF had their MG 151/20 replaced by a MK 108, which resulted in the designation G-14/U4.
So the majority built by Messerschmitt and Erla kept their MG 151/20.
G-10s were not made from old airframes, they were produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50 while the G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605A with MW-50. (DB605AM)
It is true some of the first airframes used for the G-10 were from G-6 as they were available, or from airframes planned for mounting the DB605AM (G-14) in case no DB605AM were available. Hence the twin data plate found on some G-10.
-
Thanks Wotan.
-
Why is it so difficukt for you to simply accept that you contributed to this by not disclosing that the k4 data was:
Repost from many post's ago.
I will apologize for not being more Internet savvy. It would have been better to have more clearly communicated the fact I was looking for other documentation. That in no way makes me arrogant, or a liar. Nor was there any obligation to inform anyone of my activities.
Lastly, for making the mistake of not catching the "climb and combat power"? Sure I will apologize for it. I made it. You should too since you did not catch it either. It was a third party who caught it not you or me. I think you would rather succumb to "Conspiracy Theory" though.
It was me that provided every chart, including the G14 performance chart, you are using. Does it pass the common sense test I would take the time to research it and post in the BBS if I was trying to decieve?
Crumpp
-
All I want you to say that you accept the that the careless way you handled the data the other day contributed to this conflict. Basically accept your share of responsibilty for this conflict as I have.
I have no intrest in keeping this conflict going and I have nothing against you personally, I just want you to accept your share of the responsibilty.
If you accept that then I will gladly apologize for any offense.
-
So the majority built by Messerschmitt and Erla kept their MG 151/20.
So the majority of Bf-109G14's only went 560kph on the deck and were slower than the FW-190A8.
In fact I would just say they were equal. A few KPH could be the difference in humidity, finish, or engine tune. Only a few mph either way is being argued.
Wotan ignore the second underline. The first give the operational date. Three months ahead of the Bf-109K4 AFAIK.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097712069_g14appear.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Repost from many post's ago.
I will apologize for not being more Internet savvy. It would have been better to have more clearly communicated the fact I was looking for other documentation. That in no way makes me arrogant, or a liar. Nor was there any obligation to inform anyone of my activities.
Lastly, for making the mistake of not catching the "climb and combat power"? Sure I will apologize for it. I made it. You should too since you did not catch it either. It was a third party who caught it not you or me. I think you would rather succumb to "Conspiracy Theory" though.
It was me that provided every chart, including the G14 performance chart, you are using. Does it pass the common sense test I would take the time to research it and post in the BBS if I was trying to decieve?
I made the apology for my part Grunhertz on multiple occasions. NOW your following me around the BBS? Posting in other threads and smearing my character even more??
This has gone beyond a simple misunderstanding. I really think you have a problem.
Crumpp
Crumpp
-
I know when the G-14 entered service. I don't understand the point of your post. It entered service ahead of the G-10 as well (IIRC Oct '44 for the G-10).
The G-14 is a G-6 (late G-6 with tailer wooden tail) with a DB605AM (M = Methanol / MW50). A G-14/U4 had 3cm cannon.
Performance wise it gave the same performance as the G-6 until MW-50 was activated.
A G-14/AS has the DB603A supercharger like the G-10 and MW50. A G-6/AS has the same supercharge minus MW50.
IN FB/AEP for example the G-6/AS has MW50 and as such is mis-labeled.
But as I said I don't know what it is you are telling me.
-
You edited your post while I was replying. However, I still don't understand your point.
-
Crummp this is exactly the kind of badly informed "gotcha" that you do when yiou dont know your Bf109 info.
A Bf109G6U3 had MW50 from early 44. The G14 was only a designation change in light of the standardization program. SL speed was 568km/h when mounting the MK108 30mm cannon.
I dont know where yiou get the 560km/h figure or why you think the lighter MG151/20 armament would reduce the pergormance from 568km/h with the heavy MK108 to only 560km'h withn the lighter MG151/20 mounting.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I made the apology for my part Grunhertz on multiple occasions. NOW your following me around the BBS? Posting in other threads and smearing my character even more??
This has gone beyond a simple misunderstanding. I really think you have a problem.
Crumpp
Other people are noting that they have problems with the way you post infrmation, problems that lead them to doubt yoiur integrity.
Maybe you should accept those concerns and adress them rather than than trying to suggest the peope who are put off by your style have "problems."
Accept you responsibilty in this and I will gladly apolgize, but it still seems you are unwilling to do this and still want to throw insults.
-
To clarify the MW-50 equipped Bf-109G6's.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097714064_g6mw50.jpg)
Early summer of '44 would be July for the photo recon version?
Crumpp
-
Still struggling to follow what it is you are asking/suggesting.
I will quote this again
109G14
The G-14 is mentioned in Mtt meetings minutes as the new official name of the G-6/MW50 designation which was used internally by Mtt for G-6 equipped with the MW-50 system previously used on the recce G-6/R2 variant.
I believe that quote originated from Butch.
All you are doing is 'confirming' what I quoted above.
As such I don't understand your point.
There were G-6 recce that used MW50 was a G6/R2 (somtimes I have seen it listed as G6/U3). I believe most were assigned to Nahaufklärungsgruppe's starting in Feb. '44.
-
Other people are noting that they have problems with the way you post infrmation, problems that lead them to doubt yoiur integrity.
My God, How many times do I have to apologize to you??
You talking about Furball? You should got search the O'Club for some of the US political threads. You will find the source of that contention.
I think you need to reread this post and note what others have told you. Maybe if you worried more about your own actions and less of others this whole thing would have never come up.
Your apology is a mute point.
I do take your character assassination very seriously. It strikes at the heart of any attempt at a legitimate discussion. Your following me around the BBS and trying to create a false perception is unacceptable.
Crumpp
-
There were G-6 recce that used MW50 was a G6/R2 (somtimes I have seen it listed as G6/U3). I believe most were assigned to Nahaufklärungsgruppe's starting in Feb. '44.
Yes there were Wotan. That is not a fighter version and would not be found in the JG's, correct?
So we can conclude that:
1. No Bf-109's fighters were faster than the FW-190 at low altitudes until Jul '44 at the earliest.
2. Those minority Bf-109G14 produced with the Mk 108 were 1.86411 Miles (statute) faster according to the data we have.
3. The majority of the Bf-109G14's with the Mg 151 were 3.10686 Miles (statute) mph slower than FW-190A8.
Out of curiousity do you know about how many Mk 108's were produced?
The FW-190D9 started operational use in September '44 correct?
Crumpp
-
I can post quotes from books too!
WRT to Bf109G6 from the Prien/Rodeike Bf109 FGK book:
"Use of GM-1 boost was widespread, resulting in the the G-6/U2. Externally the installation of GM-1 was presence of of a filler hatch on the right side of the fusselsge between frames 3 and 4. Equally common was the retrofitting of MW50 injection, resulting in the G-6/U3. The only external difference was between aircraft equpped with U2 and U3 was the servicing triangle painted between the filler hatch, which specified the mixure to be used. Conversion from the U2 to U3 was a simple matter."
You see, one book says it is a seperate variant the other says it isnt - but both agree that there were Bf109G6 fighter variants with MW50.
Interstingly your source seems to contradict istself. In this post of yours the book says there in no U3 number for a G6. But it the other section you posted it says that U3 does not apply to G14 any more since now the MW50 is standard... Why would that be saaid unless the U3 was a G6 designation for MW50? Seems odd to me.
I dont know what your trying to prove or disprove here any more crump. I'm satisfied in knowing and having the data that Bf109G6 with MW50 is as fast as an Fw190A8 down low and much faster at 5km. Thats all I wanted to show and all I wanted to disprove, namely yoiur claims of no Bf109 before K4 matching low alt 190A speed.
You claim to have data shoeing a 575km/h or 585km/h Fw190A8 data, are these the planes stripped of guns anf fuel tans, and flying on half fuel to reach these speeds like Meyer pointed out?
-
OK crummp, I'll trust your goodwill to have a good debate.
I'm sorry if if I offended you by overreacting in response to the way you handled the info in your posts. So yews I apologize for the things I did.
I accept your apologies and I hope you do mine.
-
I accept your apologies and I hope you do mine.
Apology accepted. Lets move on.
I would hope you will go to the other threads and repair the damage.
As for the G6. I have a copy of the book your refering too. Rodeike and Prien are not very clear on the timeline of MW-50 "retrofitting".
Fernandez-Sommerau on the otherhand spells out a clear timeline I believe.
In Jul 1944:
1. Bf-109G6's are no longer going to produced.
2. Bf-109G14's will be produced instead.
3. Bf-109G14's are the essentially the same A/C EXCEPT for MW-50 is added to the G14.
4. Bf-109G6's can NOW be retrofitted with MW-50 to bring them up to G14 standard.
So to say their were no Bf-109G6 fighters produced with MW-50 is a true statement.
There were no Bf-109G6's retrofitted with MW-50 before July 1944, also seems to be true.
This would fit perfectly with a report to higher I have from one of the GeschwaderKommanduers detailing the concerns of the his Bf-109G6 equipped Gruppen in June '44.
He very clearly complains of the operational difficulties of Bf-109 and FW-190 Joint operations and of the sinking morale of his 109 pilots. He makes it very clear that the Bf-109's performance must be improved.
He also praises the Mk 108 and says the "loss in performance" (assume he means turn circle) is worth the firepower increase.
Crumpp
-
Yes lets move on. :)
Yes, the Mk108 hurt performace in all aspects, speed, climb and turn. I pointed that out as to why I thgught the 568km'h was a remarkable figure for a 109G14 MW50 with the heavier cannon. A lighter MG151 armed one might even be a few km/h faster.
I belive that you are reffering to Mietusch's report between 109 and 190 in JG26 joint operations. I always took the speed differential statement to be cruising speed, where the 109 is indeed poor. And of course if the Bf109G6s dont have MW50 then Fw190 is faster at low level, but that was never in doubt.
As for the timelines since there is no definite I think we can disagree.
BTW how are you going to organize your book? The Hermann Fw190A book is mess, dont do it like that...
-
BTW how are you going to organize your book? The Hermann Fw190A book is mess, dont do it like that...
I agree. He also IMO does a poor job of covering later versions but he does cover the earlier versions well. I especially like Heinrich Beauvais input.
I plan on concentrating on the later versions of the FW-190A. From the FW-190A5 on up to the A9.
You claim to have data shoeing a 575km/h or 585km/h Fw190A8 data, are these the planes stripped of guns anf fuel tans, and flying on half fuel to reach these speeds like Meyer pointed out?
No. Meyer did not have the correct drag for the FW-190A. The A/C appears to be minus the 115 liter Aux tank and outboard MG151's.
BTW You asked about the Dora that does 399mph on the deck:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097722057_d9speed2chart.jpg)
It's the C3 fuel "Take off and emergency" rating line.
I gotta go. Tommorrow I will give you some pointers on getting your hands on original documentation if you are still interested.
Crumpp
-
About the gap in performance between the U4 versions and the "default" versions of the 109... can only 10/13kg do a noticeable difference? At least that is what i got from calculating the weight of the Mk108/65 rounds vs MG151/200rounds
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
What do you think guys?
-
I wondered about that too Meyer but the JG26 pilots said they noticed some difference.
Crummp how common were those 399mph doras?
-
About the gap in performance between the U4 versions and the "default" versions of the 109... can only 10/13kg do a noticeable difference? At least that is what i got from calculating the weight of the Mk108/65 rounds vs MG151/200rounds
I wondered that myself. Seems rather large for such a small weight increase. I think it must have added drag from the larger hole or maybe it effected the CG?
It certainly did effect the performance though as can be seen from the data sheet and the pilot testimony. Why is kind of mystery.
I also know the weight increase from the 115 liter aux tank has a large impact on the FW-190A8's performance. It was only 40kg dry and 120kg when full. Another point is the USN FW-190A5 test's. The USN took a crash landed ground attack version and tried to reconvert it to a fighter version. They ballasted the weight to match. Frankly, the performance they got is pretty poor compared to the Focke-Wulf and Rechlin test's. Most of that is the engine and control surface adjustment I suspect. Some of it I believe can be attributed to the weight set up as well.
Crummp how common were those 399mph doras?
Not really sure. The Dora is not my area, really. IIRC, the Luftwaffe very late in the war ran into a shortage of C3 fuel. I know all fuel was in short supply but C3 especially. It was reserved for Focke-Wulfs only. I assume that means Doras in 1945.
As you can see from the chart though, this set up is optimized for lower altitude performance.
Crumpp
-
I dont know what the performance loss was with the MK108, I doubt it was much but just enough to be noticable. And intrestingly enough you can feel it in AH as well.. :)
BTW Crummp which data sheet are yiu refering to for the performance loss figures with MK108?
If you are looking at the two G14 models and K4 sheet it doesnt show a loss. Look closely, the 560km/h SL figure is for the G14ASM high altitude optimized AS variant which is armed "wie G-6" prolly meaning standard MG151 armament only. The other G14 is the G14-U4 (DB605AM) with MW50 and armed "wie G-6/U4" meaning it has the performance degrading MK108 armament - this model makes the 568km/h at SL, but is slower at high alt.
Might be just a CG thing, but I'm kinda doubtful about the potential impact as the guns and ammo are allready mounted pretty close to CG anyway.
There wasnt any extra bigger hole for the gun tube in the spinner, it was pretty much the same size through the whole 109 G and K series..
The only external differences were IIRC a small gun gas vent on the lower right cowl, a new hatch for the gun's air supply filling connection, and possibly a spent case discharge port on the bottom. Though I'm aware of some debate whether the last item was actually fitted to the G models with MK108, but it certainly was to the K4.
So its a mystery exactly what the performance loss is or why, except that it prolly has to do with the MK108s extra weight more than other factors.
-
Ahhh, I see lots of charts, lots of info and some smileys ;)
Will collect some charts from theses threads if you don't mind, and I'll try to clean up the graphics a bit.
Anyway, continue, gentlemen ;)
Regards
Angus
-
Out of curiousity do you know about how many Mk 108's were produced?
I don't have an idea on the exact number produced but from what I have read it was only WNF that produced the G-14 with a 3cm cannon. I do know that the G-14s that the Hungarians flew had the 3 cm cannon, but they had bomb racks as well.
As pointed out the 3 cm cannon did not add much weight. I find it hard to believe it added enough to effect performance, unless the larger barrel created more drag or something.
The numbers I have for a 109G-14/U3 is 568 km/h @ SL (with MW-50 @ 1.70 ata).
The 109G6/U3 designation is sort of confusing. If you go to this site:
http://www.ww2.dk./air/recon.html
Tthen select one of the Nahaufklärungsgruppe (Close recce group).
For example I selected NAGr. 5 then scrolled to the bottom and clicked on Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, 1./NAGr.5 (http://www.ww2.dk./oob/bestand/aufkl/b1nagr5.html)
Scroll down till you see 109G6/U3 listed. First shows up in Feb '44. But clearly the close recce groups wouldn't be flying a fighter variant. My point here is the G6/U3 and G6/R2 get confused.
The quote I provided above states that the G-14 is the new official name of the
G-6 / MW-50 designation which was used internally by Mtt for G-6 equipped with the MW-50 system previously used on the recce G-6/R2 variant
So I would say that the only G-6 with MW-50 was a recce variant and it appeared in Feb '44 and the new G-6 + MW-50 fighter variant designated G-14 arrived in June '44.
-
Beginning in April 1944 the G-6/U2 were transformed on the production line for MW-50 use rather than GM-1 moreover 200 kits were issued to transform the existing GM-1 using G-6/U2.
THe aircraft transformed on the production line were issued the light tank similar to the later G-14, but the modified G-6/U2 kept their the heavy GM-1 tank.
-
Hi Grünherz,
>I dont know where yiou get the 560km/h figure or why you think the lighter MG151/20 armament would reduce the pergormance from 568km/h with the heavy MK108 to only 560km'h withn the lighter MG151/20 mounting.
Note that the 20-mm-armed Me 109G-14 achieves 560 km/h with a DB605ASM high-altitude engine, while the 30 mm Me 109G-14/U4 features the DB605AM.
Note that similar powers are given for both engines at sea level, but I think it's a bit doubtful this is correct since the larger AS-type supercharger would have eaten a bit more power than the standard one.
By the way, would you happen to have a higher resolution version of the two charts you referred to?
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/587_1097703364_bf109g14data.jpg
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/587_1097702425_fw190speeds.jpg
This looks like very good stuff :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Note that the 20-mm-armed Me 109G-14 achieves 560 km/h with a DB605ASM high-altitude engine, while the 30 mm Me 109G-14/U4 features the DB605AM.
Note that similar powers are given for both engines at sea level, but I think it's a bit doubtful this is correct since the larger AS-type supercharger would have eaten a bit more power than the standard one.
I don't know about that, but one thing is sure, both are different aerodynamically.
-
Hi Meyer,
>I don't know about that, but one thing is sure, both are different aerodynamically.
In which regard?
Henning (HoHun)
-
By the way, would you happen to have a higher resolution version of the two charts you referred to?
I believe I provided those charts. I can scan them to higher resolution if you wish.
I will do so and repost them.
Crumpp
-
Yea HoHun I noticed that since the initial post and have mentioned that as a popssibole source of confusion in later posts.
-
@Hohun: The cover of the engine, the G-14 with the AM engine have the bulges for the MG131 (just like the G-6), and the G-14/AS have the bigger cover just like the G-10 or K-4.
G-14:
(http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/drawings/g14_late/G14_left_late.jpg)
G-14/AS:
(http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/drawings/g14as_early/G14_AS_early_left.jpg)
I'm not sure if "cover" is the right word, my english is terrible :)
-
Hi Meyer,
>@Hohun: The cover of the engine, the G-14 with the AM engine have the bulges for the MG131 (just like the G-6), and the G-14/AS have the bigger cover just like the G-10 or K-4.
Roger that, but I thought the bigger AS cover was supposed to be superior to the bulges aerodynamically.
>I'm not sure if "cover" is the right word, my english is terrible :)
Not that I'm a native speaker, but I believe "engine cover" is correct :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The difference in speed is obviously due to the different engines and their altitude optimization settings.
Note how the G14/ASM makes its best speed of 680km/h at 7.5km alt while the G14/U4 makes its best speed at only 5km alt.
The G14ASM has a cleaner engine cover (the exact word is "cowl") and if had the same low altitude optimized engine as the G14/U4 it would be faster at low level beacause of its clean cowl.
-
Cowl, i knew it :D
Thx ;)
-
>Note that similar powers are given for both engines at sea level, but I think it's a bit doubtful this is correct since the larger AS-type supercharger would have eaten a bit more power than the standard one.
Perhaps that deficit was compensated by running at higher MP? Anyone knows what was the MP for the AM and AS at 1800ps? ( i guess 1.7ATA?).
And the AS versions had the same propeller than the AM ones? If were different could explain this issue.
Finally, about the cowling, i agree that the AS/D looks cleaner, but also had a larger wet area. But i can only speculate on that :)
-
Hohun,
I am not showing any deliveries of the G14 until July of '44.
Are you sure the order was not given in June for production for the month of June. Those A/C sould have been delived in July.
Crumpp
-
Hi Meyer,
>And the AS versions had the same propeller than the AM ones? If were different could explain this issue.
No, the G-14/AS has a different one than the G-14/U4 according to the overview. However, the K-4 has the same one as the G-14/AS and doesn't seem to suffer from a low-altitude speed penalty either, so I'm not sure this makes a difference.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Meyer,
>And the AS versions had the same propeller than the AM ones? If were different could explain this issue.
No, the G-14/AS has a different one than the G-14/U4 according to the overview. However, the K-4 has the same one as the G-14/AS and doesn't seem to suffer from a low-altitude speed penalty either, so I'm not sure this makes a difference.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Guys the speed difference comes from the engine, the DB605ASM of the G14/AS is optimized for high alt and its big suercharger eats some hp. The DB605AM of G14/U4 is for low medium.
And since the DB605D of the K4 is entirely different from either of the A series, even from the ASM, it has its own set of characterisics.
-
The AS (G-6/AS and G-14/AS) had the supercharger from a DB603A which gave better performance at altitude. Being 'optimized' (right word?) for higher altitude it gave up some sl speed.
These aircraft were better against the western allies.
The difference in the K-4 and G-10 and G-6/AS and G-14/AS is the the DB605D vrs the DB605A.
Even then the the G-10 with MW-50 (DB605D engine) reached 562 km/h @ 1.75 ata.
The G-14 with MW-50 (DB605AM engine) reached 568 km/h @ 1.70 ata but a lower 'best alt'.
See Isegrim's post above to compare the standard 'late' G-6 with the G-6/AS. At SL the AS is slightly slower.
-
The one Bf109 I wonder about now is the G10.
The Erla factory came up with a new G10 that differed from the standard model in featuring enhanced aerodynamics. This model eliminated the DB605D chin bulges and their big draggy gaps, it had a new lower profile oil cooler,a cleaner squared off fairing in the back of the cowl, and a new air intake.
Because its new lower cowl lacks the tradional DB605D chin bulges, this model is sometimes confused as a Bf109G10/AS but in fact an AS G10 seems not to have existed.
So these were all out DB605D machines and I wondfer how much these aredynamic improvements helped with speed..
-
Meyer,
AM and ASM engines run on the same MAP, 1.7ata, for the same output, 1800 PS @ SL. Early DM engines run at 1.75ata for 1800 PS, but most were DB or DC config, for 1.8ata or 1.9ata or 1.98ata, ranging from 1850 to 2000 PS. Keep in mind AS ones were little more than 605As with a 603G compressor built into them, the D engines were rather different in many aspects. As for the appearance of MW50 and large compressors, both were in action by April 1944, these planes being factory modified earlier planes to new standards, G-5s and G-6s. AFAIK Mtt was seriously toying with MW 50 in the last months of 1943, so probably it took a few months to get the results on the fronts. As for the Dora`s, they required B-4 fuel, unlike the 190As, so if there was specific shortage of C-3, which I am sceptical about, it wasn`t because of the Doras, but the Antons.
I am 99% certain the lower speed on the high alt AS and D engines are not from the larger compressor, the table clearly tells the very same power output, 1740 PS yields different results. Certainly not becuase the MK 108 installation, I doubt anybody would notice that mere 36 kg extra weight that came with it, both gun and ammo weight .. The larger propellor blades of the AS/D engines, designed to grab thin air of high alts, but creating more drag than neccesary at low alts (propellors work much like wings, more area = more drag). Other factors are the different cowling, here the AS/D ones with the Type 100 and Type 110 (the latter being w/o D engine`s bulges, found on some Erla G-10s only) has a decided advantage over the older 13mm HMG bulge featuring cowling.. but there`s also the if it`s long or short tailwheel, both could be found on both versions, and were rather influental on the final speeds, hence most of the 109Ks speed advantage over the G-10.
-
As for the Dora`s, they required B-4 fuel, unlike the 190As, so if there was specific shortage of C-3, which I am sceptical about, it wasn`t because of the Doras, but the Antons.
The Dora's could use C3. It's not only listed on the flight test graph but in the Flugzeug-handbuch.
Crumpp
-
When did you final accept that Crump? I remember that other thread where you screamed and hollered that there was no evidence the the Dora could use C3.
In that same thread Niklas gave a reasonable answer to why B4+MW50 was used.
page 2 in Niklas' response...
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118314&highlight=fuel
-
When did you final accept that Crump? I remember that other thread where you screamed and hollered that there was no evidence the the Dora could use C3.
When I came across flight test data and fuel reports. Actual Luftwaffe documentation.
The Dora could use C3 "if Necessary".
Well there you have it. "If necessary" you could use C3 in the Jumo 213A. I am very skeptical about huge performance gains with it. If it was the "best" performing fuel to run in the motor then it would have been the recommended fuel IMO. In fact "C3" was the more common late war fuel that Germany produced. "B4" was not the priority fuel for production. It would have been easier I imagine to get "C3".
I was wrong about the performance gains. At low altitude the Dora gained quite a bit of performance. In light of these performance gains, it is only common sense the pilots would have wanted to use C3 when available.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097722057_d9speed2chart.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Well, data is coming in at a nice pace....:)
-
Dora Climb rate:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097944967_d9climb.jpg)
Crumpp